It Is Time To Legalize Heroin

“...what we have here with heroin, is another example of how drugs clearly affect people other than the user, despite his long-winded rationalization that he is only harming himself with his use. It should be obvious to the addicts by now, that their drugs of choice do harm our society, and that a change of lifestyle is in order. Indeed, how could they not be? The mere presence of the drugs is able to inspire symptoms akin to neurosis, psychosis, paranoia, and even imperiousness in everyday citizens; every single person that is naive to the drug is affected, and correlation is positive.”

-Source unknown.

I intended to begin with a list of reasons why opiate drugs are not as harmful as they are portrayed to be, before realizing that there hasn’t ever been a serious, well-thought out point made against them being absolutely safe.

In medical literature, opioids are recognized as having no potential for physiological damage of any kind. Period. No where can there be found a single recognized negative side-effect of narcotic usage, with one exception; constipation. That’s it. One does not open a doorway to hell via opioid usage, nor does one conjure a demon, or even damage one’s brain.

Indeed, even the many reefer-madness style objections to drug use are entirely absent when one considers anti-opiate propaganda; it should be noted especially, that the modern “gateway theory” once ran in reverse; that is, an argument once leveled against opiate use was that it might lead to usage of the demon of the day, which was cannabis.

Opiates are not said to lead to insanity or violence in and of themselves; really the only reasonable arguments for their prohibition that have been brought forth are the tremendous expense of heroin or painkiller pill habitual use. These are valid concerns in and of themselves; black market heroin is notoriously expensive to purchase and risky to use due to adulterants, and pill dealers typically charge a significant markup, over and above the markup of the company that produced the pill.

Realistically however, all prohibitionist arguments directed at the cost of a habit are null and void for a very simple reason; without the draconian laws choking off the production of opioids, the cost of a heroin habit, even a very heavy one, would be utterly insignificant compared with current standards.

Heroin happens to be one of the cheapest substances in the entire world to produce, and it is even cheaper than morphine and opium extracts due to the comparative ease of extracting acetates of morphine from opium tar. Indeed, heroin isn’t even the strongest opioid produced in the acetylation of opium; 6-monoacetylmorphine is reckoned to be more potent and bioavailable, and some users of black market heroin actually prefer the hideous mexican product known as black tar heroin, almost certainly due to the increased presence of 6-MAM compared to “regular” diacetylmorphine.

Without any of the advances inherent in North American agricultural production, - vastly increased scale of manpower, machinery, processing facilities, and chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides - farmers and chemists in Afghanistan are capable of producing a kilogram of purified diacetylmorphine for... (drum roll...) nine-hundred American dollars. A kilogram.

This heroin will be sold on the street for at least $100,000. This means that because of prohibition, habitual opiate use is at least 100 times more expensive than it needs to be. A markup of 10,000%. Imagine paying $500 for a gallon of milk, or better yet, $5000 for a tank of gasoline.

And let’s be honest with ourselves; making gasoline illegal, indeed even turning the entire DEA military squads against the industry in a hostile liquidation, would not only produce a reptilian-style evil grin of revenge on the author’s face, but be a far more responsible use of the government than chasing sickly heroin addicts.

Think about it for just one second: what percentage of existential level threats facing humanity are due entirely to the use of petroleum? How many species of plants and animals, many of which could have yielded secrets to better mankind, have been wiped off the face of the planet by the use of oil? The scale and volume of pollution produced by burned petrol products, let alone the vast volume of toxic, biologically nearly invincible, useless, and hideous plastic trash that is produced, penetrates to the farthest reaches of the food chain and ecosystem.

Even human babies, indeed especially human babies, cannot escape being poisoned, even if only on a hormonal or genetic level. No big deal, right? After all, we may have the antidote, the plant that could swoop in and save us all from the vulture talons of petroleum... getting it off schedule 1 might take some work though.

Of course, one cannot mention opioids and not also mention the practice of co-administering opioids with a more chemically-stable derivative of naloxone, called naltrexone. The dose of naltrexone is kept very small, indeed so small - that while naltrexone is sometimes (cruelly) prescribed as an anti-addictive to alcoholics and psychostimulant dependent individuals, in addition to opioid addicts, and is thus available in pill form - that the dose cannot be accurately measured by end-users, unless using a liquid solution for dosing.

In any case, when supplied at trace levels alongside triple-opioid agonists, the analgesic potency rises, and the development of tolerance is not observed down to a cellular level. Your eyes do not deceive you, dear reader: it has been known for some time that opioid dependence is an avoidable phenomenon.

There are more routes to zero-tolerance on the horizon, yet despite the well-publicized “growing” “problem” of prescription drug “abuse” (the word combination barely stays visible on the screen it is such a product of deception), the methods receive little attention from researchers. Luckily, on the sidelines, we are well aware that the only serious objection to liberal opioid use, the black magic of “addiction”, is now a non-issue. The dragon is decidedly slain, yet the beast somehow remains...

It should be noted that this essay is intended to apply mostly to those who are chronically dependent, or a chronic “chipper”; the latter referring to the majority of “recreational” opioid users who are not physiologically dependent on opioids, but who do partake regularly of them, typically at a frequency of around 1-2 doses per week. Addicts are in the minority despite the public opinion that heroin and other opioids are “highly addictive”.

Most people who use opioids, even outside of doctor’s prescriptions, do not become addicted. It is probable that as little as a third of the population is vulnerable to physiological addiction to opioids; when true addiction - that is, a strong psychological pull to obtain and use heroin and other opioids - is taken into consideration, it is likely that the percentage shrinks to around 10%. That is to say, any person that tries heroin, dilaudid, morphine, etc., even with an accelerated route of administration (insufflation, smoking, IV/IM injection, rectal), is unlikely to become addicted, and as many as half the people that intentionally use heroin will actually dislike it, displaying only side-effects of a high dose such as severe itching, nausea, and profound sedation.

Indeed, for opioid addiction to develop a very specific set of genetic/psychological markers must be present, and it would appear that “addicts” are actually driven to addiction as a starving animal is to food. The opioid addict is essentially attempting to “replace” certain aspects of neurotransmission that non-addicts tend to take for granted, and thus opioid addiction/dependence seems like a mindless vice in the eyes of a non-addict.

Additionally, it should be noted that in several areas outside the US, such as several European Union nations and Great Britain, heroin (referred to as diamorphine typically) is legal for medical use alongside other strong opioids, and is prescribed to addicts for free. Reminiscent of how methadone clinics are run in North America, addicts will register and be urine tested for the presence of opioids in order to confirm addiction. Then, up to several times per day, the addicts are given a measured dose of medical-grade heroin (or more rarely hydromorphone or oxymorphone) and a clean hypodermic syringe; they will then inject the drug under medical supervision, and be on their way.

It is rare in this situation for the individuals to be either jobless or homeless: this system of prescribed heroin to addicts is highly successful, more so than North American methadone clinics, and the societal well-being of the addict does not fall under attack. Users will often inject heroin then be off on their way to work; contrary to certain popular beliefs, a heroin addict typically is not incapacitated to any degree by his or her daily usage.

Indeed, in scientific tests of various aspects of alertness, awareness and cognition, morphine and heroin do not impair users at all, even if they are non-tolerant or naive to opioids. Alcohol, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and even cannabis are all considered to be a greater impairment to normal functioning. To seasoned addicts, opioids often function as a “smart drug”, actually causing a sharp increase in awareness and thinking capability, as well as significant bursts of energy.

“Narcotic”... yeah right.

...also...

1) "What's happening is that 8% of the world's people use 35% of the world's petroleum, and are ready to blow everybody off the map to keep it that way. This is nothing more than a manifestation of junkie psychology on a mass scale. We're addicted, they got it, we're happy to pay for it, but if they won't sell it we'll break into their house and take it, because by god it will go into our right arm. That's the plan."

2) "We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the cardinals of government and science should dictate where human curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not. It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of a religious sensibility. In fact, not a religious sensibility, THE religious sensibility. Not built on some con game spun out by eunichs, but based on the symbiotic relationship that was in place for our species for fifty thousand years before the advent of history, writing, priestcraft and propaganda. So it's a clarion call to recover a birthright."

TERENCE McKENNA1946-2000

One final note: the poppy does not represent DEATH.

It represents LOVE.

All love is deadly in its own twisted ways. Poppy’s life cycle ends as a great big ball of seeds (that are nutritious for us to eat, and do not contain morphine or codeine), that if SLICED delicately, will bleed a concentrated blood: a white latex which if dried, flamed and inhaled, infuses the user with the distilled motherly bliss of GAIA... of all the plants of the world, only Papaver somniferum forever bears Her crown, from bloom, to tired husk....

She did warn us, after all. What could be more perilous than a beautiful woman in a bright red dress... ;)

And only love can truly stop the madness. Of GAIA’s bloodlines, only the opiate will soothe the left channel kundalini, and seduce the right channel into slumber.

For the love of heaven, why would they work so hard to keep this sacred medicine away from us? To render it a demon in the public eye?

All drugs should be legal, but amps change people like no other drug I've ever seen.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24341025

With heavy use yes, what we need is education, and people need to be aware of harm reduction. Fish oil for example is capable of abolishing the deficits caused by overuse of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Partially due to its powerful antioxidant properties.

heroin was invented my the government to help get ppl off opium , and opium was encouraged by the government to the peoople so they wouldnt smoke weed cuz they said it was a safe cleaner high . that was in the reefer madnees days

No. Heroin takes all the effort out of drugs. It makes it too easy.... sort of like giving random strangers access to an unlimited supply of alcohol for drinking and not to expect they will turn into addicts.

"As a rule of thumb, it is profoundly unwise to take crack-cocaine. The brain has evolved a truly vicious set of negative feedback mechanisms. Their functional effect is to stop us from being truly happy for long. Nature is cruelly parsimonious with pleasure. The initial short-lived euphoria of a reinforcer as uniquely powerful as crack will be followed by a "crash". This involves anxiety, anhedonia, depression, irritability, extreme fatigue and possibly paranoia. Physical health may deteriorate. An intense craving for more cocaine develops. In heavy users, stereotyped compulsive and repetitive patterns of behaviour may occur.

...

There is perhaps a single predictable time of life when taking crack-cocaine is sensible, harmless and both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. Indeed, for such an occasion it may be commended. Certain estimable English doctors were once in the habit of administering to terminally-ill cancer patients an elixir known as the "Brompton cocktail". This was a judiciously-blended mixture of cocaine, heroin and alcohol. The results were gratifying not just to the recipient. Relatives of the stricken patient were pleased, too, at the new-found look of spiritual peace and happiness suffusing the features of a loved one as (s)he prepared to meet his or her Maker.

Drawing life to a close with a transcendentally orgasmic bang, and not a pathetic and god-forsaken whimper, can turn dying into the culmination of one's existence rather than its present messy and protracted anti-climax.

There is another good reason to finish life on a high note. In a predominantly secular society, adopting a hedonistic death-style is much more responsible from an ethical utilitarian perspective. For it promises to spare friends and relations the miseries of vicarious suffering and distress they are liable to undergo at present as they witness one's decline.

A few generations hence, the elimination of primitive evolutionary holdovers such as the ageing process and suffering will make the hedonistic death advocated here redundant. In the meanwhile, one is conceived in pleasure and may reasonably hope to die in it."

No. Heroin takes all the effort out of drugs. It makes it too easy.... sort of like giving random strangers access to an unlimited supply of alcohol for drinking and not to expect they will turn into addicts.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30443180

Make the choice for yourself pal. We won't let you make ours for us. You have no idea what it's like to be addicted, to actually feel like you NEED to use opioids.

This is possible... infuse it with Narcan. But then people will be trying advanced kitchen chemistry to get the heroin back out again. It has been tried before with the pharma opioids, and seems to have failed.

I can't believe the crap that I'm reading, but I guess it shouldn't surprise me considering the site.

First, and probably least important, your plumbing couldn't handle the legalization of opiates. The ass-tearing bricks that would be shit...just beyond comprehension.

Second, calling heroin non-addictive (or lightly addictive) is about as irresponsible and incorrect as you can get. Its the type of miss-information that can only be provided by someone on the damned drug to begin with. The withdrawals from heroin are second only to alcohol, can kill you, and I wouldn't wish them on anyone.

Heroin is a soul-sucking temptress, and once she's latched on you aren't getting away from her. Three outcomes are possible at that point. 1)You manage to get by every day without her, but think of her every moment. 2)You continue using her, living in euphoric bliss until you OD. 3)You realize that you can't get by with her, nor without her, and the game ends prematurely.

Every time I hear this crap from an addict I think back on all those I've lost. The final months where there was absolutely no spark behind their dead eyes. The complacent content with being a lifeless slug. The constant wondering by all who loved them if there was ANYTHING they could have done differently that would have helped.

The only bonus point in legalizing the drug is that it wouldn't take long for all the Darwin nominees to OD, and they might do so in a timely enough fashion as not to get the next generation hooked.

I can't believe the crap that I'm reading, but I guess it shouldn't surprise me considering the site.

First, and probably least important, your plumbing couldn't handle the legalization of opiates. The ass-tearing bricks that would be shit...just beyond comprehension.

Second, calling heroin non-addictive (or lightly addictive) is about as irresponsible and incorrect as you can get. Its the type of miss-information that can only be provided by someone on the damned drug to begin with. The withdrawals from heroin are second only to alcohol, can kill you, and I wouldn't wish them on anyone.

Heroin is a soul-sucking temptress, and once she's latched on you aren't getting away from her. Three outcomes are possible at that point. 1)You manage to get by every day without her, but think of her every moment. 2)You continue using her, living in euphoric bliss until you OD. 3)You realize that you can't get by with her, nor without her, and the game ends prematurely.

Every time I hear this crap from an addict I think back on all those I've lost. The final months where there was absolutely no spark behind their dead eyes. The complacent content with being a lifeless slug. The constant wondering by all who loved them if there was ANYTHING they could have done differently that would have helped.

The only bonus point in legalizing the drug is that it wouldn't take long for all the Darwin nominees to OD, and they might do so in a timely enough fashion as not to get the next generation hooked.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5327118

...

What a shame, what a shame To judge a life that you can't change The choir sings, the church bells ring So won't you give this man his wings? What a shame to have to beg you to See we're not all the same, what a shame

OD's are caused by sudden changes in purity in the illicit supply. If the dose is known, the risk of OD is almost zero. Opiate users do not want to DIE. They just want to be well.

Plus you can carry an antidote. Narcan. But thanks to scum sucker "zero tolerance" policies, the PTB would rather you DIE than get clean. FUCK THEM.

And by the way that stupid little jab about constipation... well guess what jack-ass... people who are genetically inclined to use opiates suffer this to a far less extent than others. FURTHERMORE, all addicts become tolerant to this after a time. The shit doesn't just build and build and build, you idiot. Some people are opiate dependent for many decades. You're trying to tell me they have a 100 pound lump of shit in their bowels?

Here is my take, which I had posted on a similar thread. Argue if you must, but herein the truth of matter lies within sheer ECONOMICS, not IMPOSED MORALITY.

You people who throw around the word “addiction” know nothing of the true dynamic, which stem from illicit substances. Addiction is a word which is used to describe a person, whom consumes a commodity which has had its market dynamic destroyed. For example, if tomorrow they made McDonalds illegal; then the day after criminalization, everyone whom ate McDonalds would be considered an addict. This terminology, (addict), is used to label individuals whom engage in any action, which has been deemed unacceptable by “society’s” standards.

However, most of you whom buy into the “war on drugs”, DO NOT understand what the real truth is, which lays behind the issue which you so adamantly support. Firstly, your need to impose a personal religious ideology, has no relevance in a topic whose primary basis lies in ECONOMICS. What exactly is the “war on drugs”? Is it the pursuance of imposing the socio-religious-political will of a small percentage of the population, onto the population as a whole? Or, is it the destruction of the functioning market-dynamic of a group of publicly-traded commodities; done so that the final outcome profits only a select few?The truth is, that:

1. Morality cannot be regulated.2. Once a product has been introduced into the marketplace, there will usually be a demand for said product, until its function becomes non-relevant, or until it is replaced by a superior product.3. Regulation impacts only SUPPLY for a product, it does not impact DEMAND.4. The destruction of a fully-functioning market dynamic which is dictated by supply-and-demand will only result in the emergence of a “black market” economy; created to which supply the demand for the now-illicit product.

Before the advent of the “social demonization” of what we now call “drugs”, there was in fact a functioning market, in which substances such as cocaine, and heroin were openly traded in a public market environment. In this arrangement, production of these substances was carried out by some form of commercial enterprise. The companies which produced these “illicit substances”, or at least the content, sale and/or distribution of said products; were regulated in some form or another.

However, in an attempt to regulate morality, it was decided that these substances should no longer be publicly traded and/or consumed. This act did not take into account, the quelling of the demand for these products. It was simply a commonly held belief that when they became illegal to publicly produce, trade, and/or consume these commodities; that the demand for these products would disappear. Well, as it appears, this was nothing more than fantasy…As it is human behavior which dictates the need for the procurement of a product, no matter what is done to eradicate its supply.

Destroying the legal market for any product will only create a “black-market” condition, in order to supply the demand for the illicit product. With criminalization, you take the ability to regulate a commodity’s market out of the public’s hands; and place it under the control of nefarious entities.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DEMAND NO MATTER WHAT!!!

Do you wish to let the supply be controlled by illegal, unregulated entities which operate beyond the rule of law? Just as we have now, wherein the entire economic cycle is controlled by a singular group of nefarious entities?

Or would you rather that the industry be controlled within a law-abiding atmosphere, whereby taxes and other regulatory monies may be collected from a LEGALLY-FUNCTIONING MARKET DYNAMIC???

If the made McDonalds illegal tomorrow, how many McDonalds “junkies and/or addicts” would there be in the world? Do you think that making McDonalds illegal would have ANY effect on its relative demand?

Here is my take, which I had posted on a similar thread. Argue if you must, but herein the truth of matter lies within sheer ECONOMICS, not IMPOSED MORALITY.

You people who throw around the word “addiction” know nothing of the true dynamic, which stem from illicit substances. Addiction is a word which is used to describe a person, whom consumes a commodity which has had its market dynamic destroyed. For example, if tomorrow they made McDonalds illegal; then the day after criminalization, everyone whom ate McDonalds would be considered an addict. This terminology, (addict), is used to label individuals whom engage in any action, which has been deemed unacceptable by “society’s” standards.

However, most of you whom buy into the “war on drugs”, DO NOT understand what the real truth is, which lays behind the issue which you so adamantly support. Firstly, your need to impose a personal religious ideology, has no relevance in a topic whose primary basis lies in ECONOMICS. What exactly is the “war on drugs”? Is it the pursuance of imposing the socio-religious-political will of a small percentage of the population, onto the population as a whole? Or, is it the destruction of the functioning market-dynamic of a group of publicly-traded commodities; done so that the final outcome profits only a select few?The truth is, that:

1. Morality cannot be regulated.2. Once a product has been introduced into the marketplace, there will usually be a demand for said product, until its function becomes non-relevant, or until it is replaced by a superior product.3. Regulation impacts only SUPPLY for a product, it does not impact DEMAND.4. The destruction of a fully-functioning market dynamic which is dictated by supply-and-demand will only result in the emergence of a “black market” economy; created to which supply the demand for the now-illicit product.

Before the advent of the “social demonization” of what we now call “drugs”, there was in fact a functioning market, in which substances such as cocaine, and heroin were openly traded in a public market environment. In this arrangement, production of these substances was carried out by some form of commercial enterprise. The companies which produced these “illicit substances”, or at least the content, sale and/or distribution of said products; were regulated in some form or another.

However, in an attempt to regulate morality, it was decided that these substances should no longer be publicly traded and/or consumed. This act did not take into account, the quelling of the demand for these products. It was simply a commonly held belief that when they became illegal to publicly produce, trade, and/or consume these commodities; that the demand for these products would disappear. Well, as it appears, this was nothing more than fantasy…As it is human behavior which dictates the need for the procurement of a product, no matter what is done to eradicate its supply.

Destroying the legal market for any product will only create a “black-market” condition, in order to supply the demand for the illicit product. With criminalization, you take the ability to regulate a commodity’s market out of the public’s hands; and place it under the control of nefarious entities.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DEMAND NO MATTER WHAT!!!

Do you wish to let the supply be controlled by illegal, unregulated entities which operate beyond the rule of law? Just as we have now, wherein the entire economic cycle is controlled by a singular group of nefarious entities?

Or would you rather that the industry be controlled within a law-abiding atmosphere, whereby taxes and other regulatory monies may be collected from a LEGALLY-FUNCTIONING MARKET DYNAMIC???

If the made McDonalds illegal tomorrow, how many McDonalds “junkies and/or addicts” would there be in the world? Do you think that making McDonalds illegal would have ANY effect on its relative demand?

Quoting: FiRe_DrAgOn

PERFECT. Thank you very much.

However, if they ban McDonald's, they might end up promoting Burger King as a "non-addictive substitute."